...working with the DNGs in Lightroom is still really useful though. I find it much easier to tweak and do cool stuff....

I also like using Lightroom better, but some people have reported that using Lightroom with 2012 calibration can cause flicker as it appears to apply some tweaks on an individual image basis.@LetTheRightLensInPlease keep us updated with your findings/thoughts on the color management/workflow! Thanks

...working with the DNGs in Lightroom is still really useful though. I find it much easier to tweak and do cool stuff....

I also like using Lightroom better, but some people have reported that using Lightroom with 2012 calibration can cause flicker as it appears to apply some tweaks on an individual image basis.@LetTheRightLensInPlease keep us updated with your findings/thoughts on the color management/workflow! Thanks

Yeah I am noticing that for certain clips it (ACR 2012 whether through LR or PS apparently since you mention LR and I use PS) does introduce flicker. For now I pretend it is a flickering film projector .

...working with the DNGs in Lightroom is still really useful though. I find it much easier to tweak and do cool stuff....

I also like using Lightroom better, but some people have reported that using Lightroom with 2012 calibration can cause flicker as it appears to apply some tweaks on an individual image basis.@LetTheRightLensInPlease keep us updated with your findings/thoughts on the color management/workflow! Thanks

Yeah I am noticing that for certain clips it (ACR 2012 whether through LR or PS apparently since you mention LR and I use PS) does introduce flicker. For now I pretend it is a flickering film projector .

Not having use the 5d3 raw or anything, but couldn't you go into Library module in Lightroom and make the individual frames fairly small (I'm guessing they're displayed as an entire set of individual raw images) and just scroll through them quickly to see if there are any that have significantly different exposure to find those flickers?

...working with the DNGs in Lightroom is still really useful though. I find it much easier to tweak and do cool stuff....

I also like using Lightroom better, but some people have reported that using Lightroom with 2012 calibration can cause flicker as it appears to apply some tweaks on an individual image basis.@LetTheRightLensInPlease keep us updated with your findings/thoughts on the color management/workflow! Thanks

Yeah I am noticing that for certain clips it (ACR 2012 whether through LR or PS apparently since you mention LR and I use PS) does introduce flicker. For now I pretend it is a flickering film projector .

Not having use the 5d3 raw or anything, but couldn't you go into Library module in Lightroom and make the individual frames fairly small (I'm guessing they're displayed as an entire set of individual raw images) and just scroll through them quickly to see if there are any that have significantly different exposure to find those flickers?

Tricky when like 300 out of a 1000 appear to. I think some of it was actually there in real life though I think some bushes were blowing around and rapidly changing the lighting in the scene. I think 24fps makes it seem more strobe like that in real life and ACR probably did accentuate it a bit though too.

It happens when changes in the image (such as a person walking across the screen) triggers automatic Lightroom adjustments.

The good news is that you can selectively revert batches of frames back to "Process 2010" (which does not automatically adjust it) in the Settings > Process menu. The bad news is that you lose several years of LR feature advancements. But obviously, it's still better than reverting back to H.264.

For sequences with lots of motion and histogram changes, use Process 2010. For relatively calm and stable shots, use Process 2012. Or you can just use Process 2012 until you see a flicker/shift, and then revert.

is there some sort of funniness going on in this video or am i just nuts?vthe corners keep moving. it almost looks like distortion correction is being switched on and off during the video. either way it still looks 100x better than thing i can put together, and the scenery is spectacular. thanks for posting it.

is there some sort of funniness going on in this video or am i just nuts?vthe corners keep moving. it almost looks like distortion correction is being switched on and off during the video. either way it still looks 100x better than thing i can put together, and the scenery is spectacular. thanks for posting it.

You aren't crazy! This footage was extremely shaky, and I digitally "fixed" it. I honestly don't like the way it looks, but I had one cut with it un-"fixed"...and it looked even worse/more distracting.

I wasn't able to rent image-stabilized primes and my team would not let me setup a tripod while climbing...so this is the best I could do unfortunately!

I'm still struggling with how to take video while alpine climbing that doesn't look like it was shot by someone with parkinson's.

What's the latest progress on this? There was so much info about the breakthrough...but not much word on how progress was to refining this for a more general release to the public.

I think the in-camera stuff is pretty solid now (varying a bit by model). But the post-processing workflow is still in flux.

There are a number post-processing sub-projects going on right now, but as far as I can tell... nothing has risen to the top yet. If everyone were on the same OS, using the same applications, and wanted the same editing format, I think we'd have a solution by now. But it's just the opposite. That said, people are definitely chugging along.

Check out the ML post-processing forum. There's at least 8-9 projects, each with their own different process or software.

I am still holding my breath, waiting for a breakthrough in terms of in-camera conversion to 10 or 12 bit.The hope is that one of the developers stumble on an undocumented feature in the DIGIC or that a canon engineer decides to show some love